Wp/3707/2022 Of Deepak Marda v. The Income Tax Officer Ward-1 Ichalkaranji And Ors

950-cwp-3707-22.doc Digitally signedby DINESHDINESHSADANANDSHERLA IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYSADANANDSHERLADate:2022.04.19 CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION 16:59:58+0500 WRIT PETITION NO. 3707 OF 2022 Deepak Marda V/s.The Income Tax OfficerWard-1 Ichalkaranji and ors. … Petitioner … Respondents ---------------- Mr. Suyog Bhave i/b Ms Farzeen Khambatta for the Petitioner.Mr. Suresh Kumar for the Respondent. ---------------- CORAM : DATE : K.R. SHRIRAM &N.R. BORKAR, JJ.APRIL 13, 2022. P.C. 1] We find that order passed by respondent No.1 to the objectionsfiled by petitioner does not display application of mind. In the orderdated 21.04.2021, at paragraphs 3 and 4, Officer has referred toprovisions of sections 149 and 151 of the Act and says why they areapplicable, even though no objection has been raised by petitionerregarding its applicability. Moreover none of the information asmentioned in the reasons recorded for reopening has been provided topetitioner. 2]Respondent No.1 is directed to provide copy ofinformation/letter dated 07.03.2018, copy of the settlement agreement 950-cwp-3707-22.doc on which he is relying upon, copy of the appeal of in case of MilanSaini that was disposed by CIT (A), Gurgaon and copy of order passedby CIT (A), Gurgaon, on which, respondent No.1 has relied upon in thereasons recorded for reopening within two weeks of this order beinguploaded. 3]Here is a case where reopening is proposed after expiry of fouryears from the end of relevant assessment year and therefore, theproviso to section 147 of the Act shall apply. The view of respondentNo.1 that he has to only show whether there was any relevant materialwhich a person could have relied upon to form a requisite belief istotally incorrect. The Assessing Officer who wishes to reopen after fouryears from the end of relevant assessment year is duty bound to makeout a case of failure to disclose material facts truly and fully byassessee. Therefore, we quash and set aside two orders on objectionsdated 21.04.2021 and 22.04.2021. 4]We have to also note that in the affidavit-in-reply filed by oneGoushkan A. Pathan, affirmed on 10.02.2022, respondent admits thatthe petitioner has submitted all facts fully and truly. 950-cwp-3707-22.doc 5]The matter is remanded for de novo consideration by J.A.O., whoshall pass a reasoned order dealing with all objections and submissionof the petitioner. Petitioner is permitted, within two weeks from thedate of receipt of documents/information referred to in para 2 above,to submit further submissions /objections to reopening of assessment. 6]The JAO shall dispose the objections within four weeks from thedate of submission of further submissions/ objections, after giving apersonal hearing to petitioner. The notice for personal hearing shall beissued atleast seven working days in advance. If the Assessing Officerwishes to rely on any order or judgment of any High Court or Tribunal,then a list thereof shall be provided to petitioner alongwith the noticeof personal hearing so that petitioner may be able to dealwith/distinguish those orders/ judgments. 7]The JAO shall, we repeat, shall deal with every objection raisedby petitioner and pass the order on objections dealing with every pointraised by petitioner. 950-cwp-3707-22.doc 8]The time from the date of lodging this petition, i.e., 06.12.2021,until the time granted for disposing objection is excluded forcompletion of the assessment proceedings. 9]We clarify that we have not made any observations on the meritsof the case. 10] Petition accordingly disposed. (N.R. BORKAR, J.) (K.R. SHRIRAM, J.)